We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Transportation Act 3449
Details
Submitted by[?]: Demokratische Zentrumspartei
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 3450
Description[?]:
| An Act to devolve the construction and maintainence of local highway systems to local governments, and to abolish the monopoly of the state-owned national train operating company. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy in respect to highways.
Old value:: A national highway infrastructure is constructed and maintained by the government.
Current: There is a national highway system constructed and maintained by the national government, and local systems by local governments.
Proposed: There is a national highway system constructed and maintained by the national government, and local systems by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: Private companies operate regional TOC's. The national service is provided by a publicly owned, national TOC.
Current: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Proposed: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:32:27, March 03, 2013 CET | From | Demokratische Zentrumspartei | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, simply put, the national government isn't capable of dealing with the responsibilities of all aspects of government. It is not necessary for the national government to be micromanaging the maintanence and construction of local highway systems. It must therefore return these powers to local governments. It is more practical and efficient. With regards to subsidies to passengers on public transport, those that can afford it have no need for subsidies. Those that cannot, however, must be helped. What little income they have ought not be spent on transport costs. There are more important things they can spend them on. The government must subsidise the transport of the poor, fully. To partially subsidise it is not compassion, it is a shallow pretence of compassion. Finally, we ought to abolish the monopoly of the state-run TOC over national systems. Why must private companies be restricted to regional railways? Why can't choice exist at the national level? We must destroy this state monopoly and allow private TOCs to operate national services as well as nation-wide services. Paul Hiebsch MR (DZP) |
| Date | 14:06:17, March 03, 2013 CET | From | Hosianisch-Demokratisches Verbund | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | die sr. geehrte Transportministerin, Frau Rosalie Brauer MR (HDV): Herrn Präsident, I think the honourable gentleman will find that the current law only mentions the national highway system. This is, of course, an unfortunate oversight in our legal framework and I am grateful to him for pointing it out. However, I worry that the necessity of an integrated transport policy is being underestimated here: if certain places in Crownlands were unaccessible because of, for example, lack of funding, I believe there should be a way for the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to intervene. Would the honourable member agree to an amendment to that effect? As to his points on the public transport subsidies, again I am hesitant. Public Transport is a good way of dealing with the environmental problems caused by the large number of traffic jams on our national highway system and reduce environmental protection. I worry that, should the car turn out to be cheaper than public transport under the new system, we will either have to make huge investment in making the Public Transport system most comfortable and attractive or tolerate an increase in the number of congestions on our highways. Furthermore, I would draw the gentleman's attention to the fact that national railway timetables are a delicate thing. Having a national state-run railway company is one way to ensure that the pressure on those making the timetables at EisNet (OOC: EisenbahnNetwerk, the public owner and distributor of the railway system) is not too much, However, if we were to adopt a system of concessions for both national and regional services and make HRB/GSR a private company fully owned by the state, this problem could be remedied. Does that please the honourable gentleman? |
| Date | 06:25:17, March 04, 2013 CET | From | Demokratische Zentrumspartei | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, of course we would be willing to allow the national government to exercise some sort of oversight over local governments' administration of highways. We also find his second proposed amendment agreeable. Paul Hiebsch MR (DZP) |
| Date | 10:37:21, March 04, 2013 CET | From | Hosianisch-Demokratisches Verbund | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | (OOC: I believe you'll find Rosalie Brauer is a woman. Does this mean the amendments are accepted?) |
| Date | 10:40:12, March 04, 2013 CET | From | Demokratische Zentrumspartei | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | OOC: Oh, yes, missed that. "Her", then. And yes, the amendments are accepted. |
| Date | 18:34:24, March 04, 2013 CET | From | Unabhängige Sozialkonservative Partei | To | Debating the Transportation Act 3449 |
| Message | "Mr. Speaker, A state-owned train company, as previously illustrated by the honorable lady, is a highly desirable asset. With the nation's railways governed from a central node, timetables and rolling stock can be effectively and efficiently organized with the least of disconvenience on the service's users. To break up what is already a successful system seems to me to be a ruthlessly pointless act. As for the nation's extensive highway system, it is my belief that roads - more than railways - are to be more the care of local governments. In this regard, we agree with the proposed solution. This has created a deeply difficult issue for the Avantgarde-Partei to vote on, as whilst we strongly disapprove of the changes to the railways the road system would be more efficient with these proposed changes. I wonder if the honorable members would like to elaborate on the creation of independent forces seperate to the HRB/GSR, such as the division of rolling stock to the new companies and the usage of state-owned track and stations?" |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 750 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." - John Maynard Keynes |